Invited Roundtable Presentation
by Maxine Wolfe, "Inside/Outside the Academy: The Politics
of Knowledge in Queer Communities." Forms of Desire. The
Seventh Annual Queer Graduate Studies Conference. April 3-5,
1997. Held at CUNY Graduate School, Proshansky Auditorium, New
York City.

MAKE IT
WORK FOR YOU:Academia and
Political Organizing in Lesbian and Gay Communities

by Maxine
Wolfe

One of the paternalistic
ideas I have often heard from academics is that cutting edge political
thinking takes place in the academy. I have found the opposite
to be true -- that it takes place outside of the academy where
it is not hampered by institutional requirements, such as the
focus on individual scholarship and ownership of ideas rather
than collective work, or by the need to develop special vocabularies
and grand theory in order to be taken seriously by one's colleagues.

Academic work
is largely about private discussions among academics -- in places
like this -- not public discussions between academics and others,
even when those "others" are the subjects of academic
work. For example, at one lesbian/gay studies conference some
years ago, someone gave a paper "deconstructing" "we're
here, we're queer, get used to it.", without ever having
spoken to the still-living people who came up with that slogan.
I'm one of them; two of the others are now dead. The presentor
didn't even know why it was created or where the "here"
in the slogan referred to. Now, it might be interesting to know
how a slogan starts and then how it gets used, often in ways not
intended by those who create it, or why it is meaningful to people
at a particular historical moment. But, at the very least a researcher
ought to speak to the people who created it. How can you pretend
you are the only one with an analysis, and the correct analysis
at that, when you haven't asked for theirs. And, most academic
researchers never even run their analysis by the people they are
writing about. This is incredibly safe. But it is also why much
of what is written academically is not only exploitative but of
little use to anyone doing the day-to-day work of organizing.

Grassroots activists
speak to people and we write lots of things too -- but they are
not written in words you need a Ph.D. to understand or published
in books that cost $45 to buy. This is not because what we have
to say is simple-minded or has no theory behind it. It's because
our goals are to get information and ideas out to as many people
as possible and to foment activism and bring about change. And
we can often find out in practice whether it makes sense both
to the people we are working with and the situation it is addressed
to.

For example, in
the four year ACT UP campaign that changed the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) definition of AIDS, ACT UP women, working with others,
wrote lots of critiques of the existing system and continual critiques
everytime the CDC made one of its inadequate proposals. We xeroxed
thousands of all of these and sent them around the world, for
free, building an international coalition of informed grassroots
activists and supporters from a range of communities. But the
basis for the campaign had come from working with infected women
who described the infections they had but were never mentioned
by the CDC. Importantly, we didn't just have a critique of the
current system; we had a proposal for a new one.

Many academicians
write about the work activists do, but after the fact and, more
often than not, incorrectly because they use what they want to
support a theory they already have -- sometimes in bizarre ways.
And, while they critique us and constantly lament our failures,
they rarely come up with a different idea AND actually try it
out.

TWO EXAMPLES:

1) For seven
years the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization in New York, ILGO,
has protested their exclusion from the St. Patrick's Day Parade
and the denial of their right to protest the exclusion. The latter
issue is relevant to all activist groups and residents of this
city. Almost 500 people have been arrested during these years.
There are many fascinating political aspects to this protest.
Yet, a researcher writing a paper about "queer politics"
reduced this to describing ILGO's position as "liberal assimilationist"
-- her analysis of ILGO members' expression of identity issues.
She never participated in planning meetings; never engaged in
discussions with ILGO members concerning their political points
of view, strategies or tactics. Her analysis has nothing to do
with the political world views which inform this protest.

2) A second example.
There is a minor academic industry of papers, theses and chapters
about ACT UP, each from its own theoretical point of view. Analysis
of ACT UP's work could contribute to future activism if it actually
described the day to day work or the political discussions and
conflicts or even closely followed and documented the strategies
and outcomes of an action or campaign. But, with minor exceptions,
people don't even get the facts right let alone delve deeply
into the work. Most claim Larry Kramer founded it, for example.
WRONG. One person had an idea about "inappropriateness"
of ACT UP actions and opened his chapter with a description of
an action at Shea Baseball Stadium organized by the NY ACT_UP Women's Causus in 1988 as part of
"women and AIDS" actions done around the country. He
described every aspect of the action except the focus on women
and the fact that it was organized by women. He described every
banner -- "Don't Balk at Safer Sex", "Strike Out
AIDS", "No Glove, No Love" -- except the one that
said "AIDS Kills Women." He even described how we got
a message on the LED board for buying 60 seats. He did not, however
mention the message: "Welcome, National Women and AIDS Day
Committee." The entire actual concept and goal of the action
were erased so he could make his theoretical point. And, instead
of helping to figure out how people in ACT UP managed all of
the work relating to women or drug use or to youth or healthcare,
like most of the work on ACT UP, anything other than "drugs
into bodies" has been erased in order to validate the common
critique that it had a totally privileged "white gay male
agenda."

There is virtually
no way for activists to get space to counter these inaccuracies
and incorrect analyses because academia stays self-contained.
Everyone can congratulate everyone else on their brilliance since
none of the people involved can ask crucial questions or say "the
emperor has no clothes" -- if we ever even know that anything
is being said about us in the first place.

And, now that
"lesbian/gay" and "sexuality" studies are
institutionalized, we have gay experts rather than straight experts
invited to testify at hearings on our behalf, most often without
us knowing. Once, however, as an activist, I was present during
such testimony. It was a National Commission of AIDS hearing about
what they called "AIDS and Sexually Identified Communities".
Lots of things about the testimony made me want to shriek, but
I'll give just two examples. Almost 11 years into this epidemic
(1991) they were there to substantiate the idea that sex education
for HIV prevention has to be explicit and not confined to any
"special interest group" -- those were their words.
They said: "Sexuality is fluid"; "look at what
people do and not what they say"; "just because a women
says she's a lesbian doesn't mean she's not having sex with a
man." Did they say that "just because a man is gay doesn't
mean he isn't having sex with a woman?" No. But, that
aside, is this the way to explain HIV infection among lesbians?
Is it the basis for HIV prevention material for lesbians? Though
we activists weren't supposed to speak, we interrupted to make
the point that, despite "sexual fluidity", most self-defined
lesbians have contracted HIV through sharing dirty needles during
drug use and that postulating a one-night-stand with a man as
the primary cause of infection in lesbians is absurd. And infected
lesbians are having sex with WOMEN but no one except us is trying
to figure out what safer sex might be for us. Their testimony
also covers up drug use in our communities and speaks to a prevention
campaign which would be useless.

The people speaking
were two gay sexuality researchers and one heterosexual one. Did
it make a difference? No. The most conservative member of the
AIDS commission asked the question: "Don't we have to have
values? Isn't commitment something we should teach?" Rather
than respond to the homophobia in the question, all they did was
repeat that their research showed that behavior and values don't
match. Another activist present interrupted again and said: "I
have been living with my lover for 15 years; in fact, our parents
just made us an anniversary party. But we both have sex many times
with other people. What you define as commitment is not necessarily
what we do." The activist challenged the status quo. The
sexuality researchers did not. But their view gets more credibility.
If we won't question their frameworks publicly, who will? But
we can't do it if we are not directly in touch with what is happening
on a day-to-day basis in our own communities or if we allow academic
rhetoric, theory and posturing to substitute for political and
ethical analyses and activism.

Frankly, academia
has been largely irrelevant to my political work; if anything,
my political work has contributed to my general understanding
of the world and, therefore, to my academic work, but especially
to my ability to survive academia. Everything I have learned politically,
from logistics to theory, I have learned from people outside of
the academy (I even went to Brooklyn College after all of the
Marxists had been fired during the McCarthy Era) and many of them
have never stepped foot inside the university or barely made it
through. Yet, they are the smartest, most thoughtful well-read
and creative thinking people I have ever met. Most don't even
know that queer theory exists. It hasn't stopped them from creating
change. They have been inspiring and without them as a community
I would not have developed politically or intellectually.

People who do
grassroots, unpaid political work talk about and discuss political
issues and world ideas continually, as we are acting to change
a world that would like to see us die or disappear. We have to
have an analysis to do what we do. And, we have to know a lot
-- from how government operates to how long traffic will be backed
up if we block it; from constitutional rights to the politics
of the Irish community; from how institutions operate to how to
make a chant people will remember; from where to buy an air horn
to how to design research trials; from right-wing theory to left-wing
theory. We are constantly analyzing our successes and failures
and having to come up with something based on the outcome -- something
we can act on again. It is intellectually challenging work of
the most creative sort.

In 1978, during
my first sabbatical and with time out for reflection after having
had to fight for my tenure (you can probably guess why), I decided
I would quit my job. Before making such a rash decision, however,
I decided to talk to an old political friend who also taught at
CUNY. During the anti-Vietnam War period he had to fight for his
tenure because of his outside political work and because he had
given back his government grant money and stopped his research
because he thought his findings could be used unethically. Listening
to my tales of woe, he said: "Listen, you are the single
parent of two children. You're from a working-class background
and you have a tenured job at a public university with a union.
Make it work for you."

Those words snapped
me out of my stupor. Although I had a critique of the institution,
I had become trapped in its framework. I really didn't want to
change my discipline; I wanted to help change the world. I followed
his advice.

On July 1, 1997,
19 years later, I officially retired from the university after
30 years. The two things academia contributed to my political
work over these years were: First, the privilege of having a stable,
decent-paying job where I could structure my own time and had
so much time off, once I was no longer locked into the get-a-grant,
publish-a-paper syndrome, that I could continue to do my political
work outside the university. Yet, most of the people I know politically
work 9-5 jobs and still manage to do their political work, something
I totally respect and am in awe of. The second contribution was
access to resources I could use for political work and share with
others who needed it, from xeroxing machines to providing meeting
rooms, or using my status to get seats "at the table"
for people without Ph.D.s.

If you are thinking
that what I have said is "anti-intellectual" or an urging
for you to do what is commonly known as "relevant" academic
work, let me close with some final points about academia, lesbian
and gay studies, and political organizing outside of the academy:

1) I think of
my self as an intellectual -- which I do not see as a negative
term. I do try to understand how the world operates and I love
to engage with ideas -- ask any of my friends. I NEED to do that
as a political person and I also LIKE to do it. But I also believe
you have to try to change the world in order to understand it.

2) If you think
people in political movements are not intellectual and need your
analysis because they do not have any, you are more wrapped up
in academia than you think and give yourself more credit than
is due.

3)Academic lesbian and gay studies would
not exist if political movements did not make it possible. If
you are an out lesbian or gay academic, or an academic who can
do lesbian and gay focused research, remember you got there on
the backs of people who put their bodies and their lives on the
line.

4) If you are
a lesbian or gay man interested in other topics, don't let anyone
guilt-trip you into doing research with lesbian and gay content.
Follow your intellectual curiosity. But always remember that you
exist and so do I, and so does an incredibly diverse world-wide
set of lesbian and gay communities. Think about that whatever
your topic is. It could change the way you understand it.

5) If you do academic-based
research on lesbian and gay topics, have some humility. You do
not speak for political movements and political movements cannot
be reduced to your research. You need to be responsible and accountable
to the lesbian and gay communities and not to academia. If you
are not willing to put your ideas out for criticism to the people
you are researching and writing about, check yourself out.

6) Finally, whether
or not your research is on lesbian and gay issues, and no matter
how you do it, remember it is no a substitute for licking envelopes
or being out at a demonstration.

See other writings
by Maxine Wolfe:

Tactics
of Early ACTUP_NEWLY ADDED(excerpted)
interview with Maxine Wolfe by Laraine Sommella, "Queers
in Space"